4 Table High Stakes 6-Max NLHE (part 3)
Posted by Sauce123
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 81 Comments...
the friday's gift :)
Min2, Turn Lead Kc7s on 9686 What hands would you 3bet bluff turn against his raise ? Would you 3bet from K6+ for value ? or even your lowest 6x too ?
Something that i could never see on your videos is how do you handle on the river this range after you lead 1/5x pot on the turn. I like having an overbet-leading-range on the river once i did these smalls leads on the turn, what do you think about that ?
Good questions Juan. Despite a lack of qualification, I'll take a shot at answering, before adding my own, more basic questions about this hand.
Playing turn range vs IP raise: It seems like we can't 3b flop after this action. IP is upcapped and with tons of nutted combos. Yes we have a huge 6x advantage - those are our nutted hands, but IP has all straights and boats, whereas we don't after our flop check call. Since I'm not wanting to raise our strongest hands, I can't raise any draws. Overall this seems to put us in a very poor spot, which makes me thing there is some conceptual framework I'm missing.
OTR it seems like we'll have a lot of missed draw combos that we'll want to bluff with (vs his now capped range), so it seems like an overbet is in order to allow for more of these combos. We'll also have a lot of 6x and made draws that are essentially the nuts, so an overbet seems to work out well as a betsize for our riverrange here, and we seem to have good balance.
My question(s) come before the ones Juan asked in terms of conceptual depth - I need to understand them first before being able to effectively tackle the full scope of Juan's questions.
I see the reason for the turn lead. IP cbets polar here and therefore has little 6x in his cbet range. Furthermore, we have more 6x in our PF range that he does to begin with. The 6 turn is a much better card for our range that IP's, and because of that, I can see the appeal in leading into IP (and his polar cbet range). However, we're capped here, right? Sure we have much more trips than he does, but A6x is our top. Meanwhile IP can still have all straights and boats. (I'm making the assumption that you don't slowplay the flop here much/at all.) Aren't we now susceptible to IP making this big turn raise, and then shoving most/all rivers? I suppose the obvious response is just to never fold our 6x, and we'll have draws that complete OTR too that we can check call. It just seems like we won't have enough strong combos to defend.
The other side of this is that while we'll have a lot of 6x, it seems like we'll be pretty bluff-heavy here on the whole. We'll have so many open ender and gutter combos, that it seems like between the fact of our range perhaps being a little too weak overall, and the fact that he's uncapped, IP could put us in a real tough spot by raising turn big and shoving river.
I think an overbet leading range is OK on the river if you play it well.
Nick,
Having an uncapped range doesn't give one player carte blanche to bluff. You're right that IP can "put us in a tough spot" by putting all the money in on any given hand. But the "tough" part is just that it will feel dirty to call down, it might not be a close spot in terms of EV at all. If he's bluffing too many combos for each value combo (call this ratio roughly 1:1) then we'll be printing it when we call down with the stronger parts of our range.
The previous analysis presupposes that IP's range is sufficiently wide and (semi)bluff heavy that his ratio of value:bluff after we bet the turn is substantially more than 1:1. If that's not the case, then we should be check/folding with the majority of our turn range facing most betsizes. It's important to see that this turn bet is more like a check than a bet, if you think check/folding 60%+ is right then betting is definitely wrong, but if you think we can check/defend well enough on the turn then betting small can't possibly put us in a tough spot so long as we play reasonably well.
Like most questions in poker this is less a conceptual problem than a counting problem!
Hey all,
I'm still traveling/on vacation, so I'll be posting much less than I would normally. I typically keep the comment threads on my videos active for 2-3 weeks after the video gets posted, but in this case I'll be discussing hands longer so that I can catch up after I'm home on March 20th. Please get the discussion rolling in my (semi) absence.
Sauce, I think 4 table live commentary is a little too much. a lot of subtle nuances are often overlooked in the moment of 4 tables while discussing the hands. live commentary is defintely more valuable and preffered heads up. The content and hands you played in this series would have had much more value if you recorded the commentary after the play, too much analysis was lost. but thanks for videos you're a great player.
We've got 3 Sauce videos in 3 weeks.. no complaints over here!
When you talk about flatting or 3-betting AK around @1:20, what kind of frequencies you would usually go with? Let's say UTG opens, you're in hijack, cutoff or button, would your frequency to 3-bet increase or decrease towards later positions if it's folded to you? (My guess would be to increase) Would you use the same frequency for both AKs and AKo?
@10:50
I was quite surprised by the A6s fold, given it was OTB and potentially multiway. What are your Axs flatting hands here? Seemed kinda tight in my eyes, considering e.g. flatting the 3b @28:45 with K7s which seemed quite contrary to tight.
I don't think you're asking a question I can answer, so I'll substitute an easier one. There are two viable lines preflop with AK vs UTG, the first is to flat, and the second is to 3b and call a 4b. 3b with the intention to 5b has been shown to be worse than these others. Deciding between 3b/call or flat is difficult, mostly because it's hard to model the EV of postflop play in the deeper game trees (i.e., flat>3b+call>call4b). So, if I'm playing a mixed strategy there it's because I don't know which play is right, not because I'm trying to keep a precise mix of plays in balance.
I'm not sure about the A6cc fold either, but it seems tricky because I'm behind both players' preflop ranges and I have to sweat two blinds who can 3b me and make my EV much worse.
Edit: I've been looking more at preflop play in 6m nlhe the last few days and I think there's some legit disagreement that 3b/5b might be best also, so I have nfi what to do.
+1 at surprised to see you fold A6ss @1045 mark
Thanks for another good video ben!
05:36 - You have AJo in the BB. CO opens to 2.7BB, BU and SB flats. Isn't this a good spot to squeeze? BU and SB probably don't have AQ/AK too often and you can make strong 1-pair hands. What's your squeezing range here?
11:54 - You flat K2s in BB vs BU open. Board is K92A, you check-call the Flop. You mentioned that BU should be bluffing the Turn very aggressively. Isn't the Turn better for your range than his? I guess your range is capped as you cannot have KK/AA/AK but at the same time he would often be checking back the Flop with Ace high whereas you would often check-call the Flop with Ace high, making it a card which helps you more? Or do you think that your range shouldn't contain so many Ace highs as compared to a 552r board for example. Should we even c/c a hand like A3/A8 on the Flop?
13:00 - You check in BB with J3o after SB limps. The board is AJ56K and SB fires thrice and you call down. The run-out seems really good for SB to bluff a lot as he should technically have a very strong range comprising of all sets, all the broadway 2-pairs, all AX and QT.
Preflop: Are you raising the top 25-35% of hands here? You aren't going to have too many AX hands right? Which probably means that you have to call down some JX hands. But at the same time the board run-out is really bad for you.
thanks for answering my questions as always.
@5:36, The question I'd ask is "is this a spot to be squeezing more or less often than when I'm hu vs the opener?" and "Should my range composition be the same as if I were hu vs the opener?" I'm not sure what the answer to either question is, and because I'm not I don't know whether AJo is a better squeeze or flat. Keep in mind that flatting with AJo here is +EV, so for AJo to be a good squeeze its EV squeezing needs to be >= to its EV flatting.
@11:54, Many players won't checkback A high in this situation. I also don't think I'll have much A high without a bdfd here. I'd be surprised if A3/A8 was a +EV xc on the flop. If that were true then the bottom of our xc region overlaps with the top of IP's bluffing region which means someone is doing something wrong. However, if your estimate of the play here is more accurate, and A high is a clear checkback, then calling A3-A8 might be more reasonable. An important variable is how often the button is opening, if it's 80%+ (or if btn plays badly and weakly) I can see an argument for check/calling more A highs.
@13:00, My call is exploitative here, I should pretty much for sure be folding turn or river with my hand if I'm being balanced. It turned out wrong, but maybe it wasn't that bad since he took one of his best checkdown hands and bluffed 3 streets with it, so it's possible he is bluffing a huge amount here.
Hi Ben,
Great video!
I have some questions:
1. 06:20 AsJx flop call vs SB lead 4way. Shouldn't SB's range here in theory be very strong (like sets/FD's/ weak bluffs like AsX, backdoor clubs)? Against that range your hand is a bluffcatcher with 2 players still left to act. Do you think ppl bluff enough hands with little equity vs your hand (like Ac5c) in this spot? (It seems that if they don't and only have sets/FDs we should fold. Am I right?) Would you call AJ w/o As?
2. 26.36 53o vs BTN. You said he probably doesn't have many straights there. In my experience players who open 57% always have A2o/76o in their range. Would you still ch/r your hand if you knew they had 32 straights in their range?
3. 28.16 AQ cbet KKTtt 4way. What is your plan on future streets if BTN folds and SB or BB calls you?
Thank you in advance!
Interesting questions as usual.
@1- I certainly agree that as sb's range becomes more polarized and generally stronger (i.e., the value portion of his range doesn't contain any hands worse than mine) my flop call loses tons of EV, especially with players left to act behind me. Can you explain your reasoning a little more as to why SB's range "should in theory be very strong"? One important point in multiway pots is that protection is more important than in normal NLHE situations.
@2- Good point. I agree that a majority of the offsuit straight combos are probably in his range. I go back and forth on these spots, but this morning I tend to think XC is better. I don't think the primary reason to XC is to keep my range stronger for that line, the only boards I'm particularly weak on are pair/pair, like J/J, and to a lesser extent bway/bway where I don't hit 2pair. The main reason to XC is just that the boards he'll want to stick a lot of money in on vs my XC range tend to be the ones which run out well for 2pair, with the exception of pair/pair where I'll just be weak and have to deal with it.
@3- The key point for me is that SB/BB are going to have a hard time calling me with a large portion of their ranges vs the flop cbet. Given that I think their ranges are fairly tight to call flop, I don't love a turn barrel. That being said, a turn barrel is pretty OK vs the BB because his range will be weaker (closing the action) and will have more weak Tx combos (because of preflop) and weak draws (preflop again). Another reason to keep barreling the BB is that he'll have some small FDs/gutters that he'll bluff with on rivers vs x/x OTT and against which I'll have to fold my equity; barreling lets me realize my equity. The SB on the other hand is a different story, because preflop he'll be pair and bway heavy. With an UTG cbetting into a strong btn flatting range (btn's flatting range contains lots of Kx and FDs) and a live hand in the BB, I expect SB to fold most of his underpairs, making his weakest XC hands AJo/T9hh type of stuff, maaaybe 88/99. Even worse, ATo probably folds preflop, and AJo might too. So I'll tend to give up vs the SB's flat, but occasionally 3barrel for balance to get him off of KJ type stuff if he's a great player (if he's not a great player I expect him to only fold FDs like AJcc to the 3rd barrel so I won't 3barrel much here).
@1 I've always thought that the responsibility for defending against SB's bet should be distributed between 3 other players, so my guess is that neither plays should in theory call the flop bet w/o a jack / fd / mb some gutter+BDFD stuff.
I assigned players the following ranges:
CO: AA-22,AKo-A9o,KQo-KTo,QJo-QTo,JTo,AKs-A2s,KQs-K6s,QJs-Q8s,JTs-J8s,T9s-T7s,98s-97s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s,54s
BTN: 99-22,AQo-AJo,KQo,AJs-A9s,KQs-KTs,QJs-QTs,JTs,T9s,98s,87s
BB: 88-22,ATo-A8o,A5o-A2o,KJo-K9o,QJo-Q9o,JTo-J9o,T9o-T8o,98o-97o,87o-86o,76o,65o,54o,ATs-A5s,KJs-K2s,QJs-Q2s,JTs-J2s,T9s-T6s,98s-96s,87s-85s,75s-74s,64s-63s,53s,43s (completely unsure about this)
and found that players will defend (assuming they'll proceed J+/OESD+, gutter+nutBDFD):
CO: 34.8% (31.9% taking into account the JT removal effects)
BTN: 29.4% (25.2%)
BB: 26% (23.1%)
so SB will get folds 39.2% and will be raised/called by a pretty strong range (consisting of TPs and high equity bluffs that JT is doing very poorly agaisnt).
I see how protection becomes more improtant multiway, but do you think it's a strong enough factor that betting JT becomes better than checking?
The question I'm asking is 'under what conditions does it maximize EV to bet JT?' whereas you seem to be asking the question 'supposing my opponents defend 1-a% collectively, will JT be ahead of their range(s)?' I don't think these two questions are equivalent, but I agree with your analysis that the answer to the second question is no. I'm guessing your methodology for dealing with NLHE situations makes it true that the first question collapses into the second question, but it's worthwhile to think whether that's a good assumption to leave unquestioned.
please dont ever stop making this videos, they are great! I think both 1st videos of this series u played extreeemely well, whereas this last one seems u played bit more spewy and gambler in some spots, i dont know what might be the reason of this but still i'm looking forward this format to continue!
U had several weird hands vs 0human0 which it seemed to me his plays are far from being +ev:
- First one, you lead the turn 9866hh board wK7o and he raised really big, not sure what hands u wanna make that play with in his shoes.
- 2nd, he limps sbvbb and bets 3 streets wk9o in AJ5r7K, was he making a range play, then thinvaluebetting the river? Very strange hand again.
- 3rd, one of the last hands of the vid, where he 3bets sbvB and fires 3barrels wATo in Q35hh4ddAx, which again seems to me kind of a random and spewy play by his part. Barreling a hand with almost no equity and no backdoor equity, and then again making a very optimistic valueshove on the river.
My point is.... i thought this guy was one of the world's best, and of course one can't draw conclusions from just 3 hands, but seems his game got a little rusty or something. What do you think?
Hey Squall,
Welcome to the discussion. Can you clarify your argument a bit for me?
@1 "not sure what hands u wanna make that play with in his shoes"
Why? What's your argument? It isn't obvious to me that this is right.
@2 "was he making a range play, then thinvaluebetting the river?"
What is a range play to you? I definitely think he is thin valuebetting river. This is a funny hand because in balanced play I'd be folding at least some of my Jx by the river, meaning that value betting a K is very likely worse than checking it. On the other hand, I decided to try to exploit Human by calling my whole J> range, making his value bet reasonable if not exploitative.
@3 Why do you think the river is a very optimistic value shove? What line would you suggest on the earlier streets instead of betting? I think if his range contained every Ax combo for bet/betting he would be too semibluff heavy on the turn and exploitable by a variety of counters, but I also think it's good to bluff with a hand like this at least sometimes. Given our small sample size and my prior read that Human plays nitty, it seems like he made a good adjustment vs me by barreling more than he could get away with if I was more suspicious of him.
I think i was a bit erratic on my previous post, but ill try to clarify it. I appreciate your comments and any corrections / logic flaws on my reasoning are welcome, of course.
@1: As i would think your leading range on that turn is quite polarized to either trips or weak draws (and you are not folding trips to a raise), I thought i would never raise if I were human. So i'd fold some hands with poor equity and call the rest of it - medium hands, strong hands, and decent draws, (including gutshots with SDV like KT, AT)- planning to call down a riverbet with almost all my medium hands (9x, 8x, TT+), and raise some of my draws that did or did not get there (and of course raise my strong hands). But of course you can develop a raising range on the turn, I just think its harder to balance and plays worse overall vs your continuing range. Besides, it makes easy for you to play your bluffs (just fold'em) + not allowing you to bet the river again and get some extra out of your bluffs.
@2: What i meant by range play is like balancing his range (im not sure if this is correct, im lost in some terminology yet) as his sb limping range will contain much more Ax hands than your bb checking range. But still he has Khigh so he has some SDV and you are not folding much OTT after calling the flop, so why 2barrel? The river is what seems more logic to me if he thinks you are calling him down light, and 2nd pair seems good when your range doesnt contain many Ax hands.
@3: Now that i think of it again, i agree river is again what seems more std about the hand. As you showed in 2 previous hands vs him that you can call him down somehow light (hand @2 and the 85s vs JTo hand on 89563 board) and in this spot of course some of your Qx hands has to call down anyway, plus some Axs hands containing FD's on flop or turn, his river shove is very likely to be +ev. But since he seems to barrel hands with some SDV, makes me thinks that in general his 2/3barrel range is very weak. Im not sure about this, but I would suggest in this hand to x/f the turn with the AT, because my turned gutshot completes all your gutshot floats, and i dont think your flop calling range in most runouts is going to be weak enough to make you fold enough for my 3barrel to be profitable. Plus i'd have a lot of better hands to barrel in this spot, like all my flop and turned FD's, 68-69s, and some turned gutshots like 78s or 79s.
@@2: I should definitely have some Ax range in my checking range in the bb, certainly A2o-A7o or so, and probably more. Check out some later posts ITT regarding this hand, posters like Zrebna and gbtl seem to have a good grasp on this hand.
@@3: I agree with pretty much all of this. I think the river is a fairly easy value jam, but prior to the river his plays are very thin, although not obviously bad. One thing you're assuming is that he bets the flop with the rest of his Ax range, but that isn't necessarily true. One main reason I didn't condemn his play as bad is that I don't know how he builds his flop cb range, maybe he checks AK all the time and bets a more polarized range. If so, ATo might be one of the only Ax hands he decides to cb "bluff" flop with, so it might be OK to keep barreling on the turn. I def agree with you though that one bad consequence of a flop strategy that doesn't bet AK and does dbl barrel AT is that IP's flop floats will dominate our double barrels and make the river more miserable for us.
@18:00. You got, TT in a 3bet pot, you called a 9% 3bettor, he is in the SB. You're OTB. Flop came 762 with a flushdraw. You mentioned how you're raising flop for protection when he cbets.
What is your calling range in that spot?
Is it 7x and 6x, iow hands that are too weak to raise and get it in (even though they need even more protection)?
Raising ranges on a flop like that are a tricky thing, and something I'm working on in my game now. I've found that against a polarized cbetting range, raising/getting in TT is marginal, but against a 100% cbettor whose preflop 3betting range is linear it's a strong play.
I think it's safe to say that raise/getting in any flopped pair is going to be exploitable by a very nitty cbetting strategy from the BB.
One important point w/r/t protection is that the bigness of my pair alone doesn't determine how much protection my hand needs. Actually, I think TT needs more protection than 7x/6x because the smaller pairs have (besides like 64s if I play that) either 1-2 overcards, and often a BDSD/BDFD, and in addition the BB's cbetting range contains fairly few hands that improve on the 8/9, meaning that the amount of overcards in BB's range is about the same for the 7x/6x or the TT.
Right; if I got you correctly, it is mostly a case of the cbetting range, ie what's in the range that puts us to the decision.
If we assume a mostly merged 3betting range,
and then a polarized cbetting range on the flop,
then TT works better as a call. Naturally, that's often the case with bluffcatchers vs a polarized range.
Are there any hands in your range that you'd still be raising on 762 with a flushdraw as a default? It's kind of a lowish board for our range.
Same question for 982 with a flushdraw, iow a board that hits us better.
I LOVE THIS SERIES
Hello,
9:20 KJo I think you don't have too much bluff in your range, at least not in you perceived range so I guess it is a better spot to be bluffheavy a little bit. If you play almost(?) any AJ in your range like that and play every hand which is better than 78s that way you get the desired V:B ratio. What are your thoughts about your play afterwards?
10:57 A6s I'm very surprised that you folded there. Isn't it a good hand to play a MW pot with guaranteed position?
Ps: next time please don't cover the stacksizes with the hud. :D Of course I saw the digits but sometimes I had to zoom my head manually closer to the monitor to see them well.
atton,
@9:20, I'm not sure what you're asking? My thoughts about the play afterwards are what I said in the video, so I are you asking me to expand on something?
@A6s, Lazysummerdays and I are talking about this hand earlier ITT, please add to that discussion.
What do you think about a weird (but maybe sexy) turn squeeze at around the 20 minute mark with your 9c7 on the AK84 board? You checked the flop and it checked through. You checked the turn and it went bet/call. I know it looks funny and is probably not a play you would make very often with a big hand, but it also seems like unless you are abusing a play like this, it just might work pretty damn well. Almost like a fake punt in a football game. What do you think? What would you do if someone made that play against you and you had AQ (which is probably the very top of either players range other than maybe 44 once in awhile)? My feeling is without a read, I am puking and folding pretty often. Interested in your thoughts.
I've noticed a bit of a trend in your posting that when you see a capped range you really like to attack it. Instances of capped ranges usually have it in common that if villain believes us, our bluff will have a very high EV, and if he doesn't believe us it will have a hugely negative EV. I don't think it's an accurate way of doing psychology to argue, "If I did this to myself I'd fold, so I'll bluff this guy in this way," because people think of situations way differently. I also think you're probably underestimating how much of each players' range will be 444 by the time we get to the river.
One more question if you're up for it. I have noticed a trend of greatly limiting instances where guys bluff with little to no equity, instead favoring opportunities where they do have equity or at least some showdown value where they might win say 5% of the time.
My question is do you think this concept has been taken too far? I understand that for GTO purposes if you start getting carried away bluffing with your range that includes little to no equity, you are going to become tremendously imbalanced. But at the same time, should we give our opponents so much credit for being able to recognize this imbalance?
At the highest stakes games against very strong opposition, getting carried away with bluffing with little to no equity is likely to become exploited, but I am curious about your thoughts when playing against good as opposed to great players, the importance of worrying about being exploited. Maybe it is a leak in my game, but I feel like I find quite a few spots where bluffing with no equity seems to be a reasonable option, especially if overbets are used to induce folds.
For example, lets say you have 44 and you raise from MP. Fairly loose preflop BB calls. Flop comes down AK6. He checks and you check. Turn is a 2 and your opponent fires into you. You min raise and he calls which sorta defines his hand a bit. River is an 8 and then you 1.25x the pot after he checks to you. I just feel like guys puke and fold here a lot. Since 90% + of the members play low to mid stakes where hand reading is not what it is at the high stakes, do you think perhaps it is worth a video here and there to discuss highly expolitative lines that in practice just seem to flat out work?
Maybe the answer is that you simply don't play those stakes and therefore don't know what these spots are which makes a video tough to do. Not a knock on you of course, how would you know what works against competition you don't play against after all. I'm curious if you ever take these lines against high stakes guys? Do you think even against the very best players, perhaps just taking a line like that once a session might yield a few extra BBs a day that adds up over the course of a year. Or do you simply think at those stakes your opponents just aren't going to buy it and toss in the chips far too often for a random line like this you might take once in awhile to work?
Thanks for your thoughts if you have time. No worries if you don't. Thanks again for another great video!!
I guess my last reply ties in with what I'm going to say here. If there's some line that you think will work way more often than it should, by all means take it. You seem to give me credit for identifying lines like that, but I'm not particularly good at doing so. I do think that if you know the metagame really well at a given stake (which you probably do since you put in so much volume with the same player pool) then you'll probably find some spots to make very +EV exploits if you're one of the better regulars. These days I'm playing 6max/hu NLHE, PLO, 2-7 PL TD, and mixed games, so I'm generally not in the best position to know the metagame at a given stake/game very well. I tend to get by because I have better fundamentals than my opponents rather than because I know what they're thinking. Someone like Phil is waaay better at getting into people's heads and exploiting them.
Leather and Ben,
I don't mean to butt in, but these type of questions happen quite a bit in Ben's threads and I always am left thinking the same thing. Leather, by saying that bluffing with no equity would work in a particular spot you are essentially saying that the villain doesn't understand your range in that spot as well as he should (i.e he thinks you have more value combos than you do OR he thinks you never bluff because his range is too strong etc.). Thus, wouldn't it be beneficial to not just bring up the concept in theory but to actually break down a situation where this is likely to occur and identify WHY that is.
For instance, say that on J9429 boards people think the turn raising villain has way more trips+ than he does because they make "____" mistake on an earlier street. This mistake can be avoided by thinking in this way at this spot. Also, here is another spot "_____" that is similar and likely to lead to the same mistake.
That would be an interesting video topic: "Spots where bluffing with no equity would work the best and why!"
Ben,
I totally understand. I was more speaking to the forum as a whole and trying to drive any and all exploitative comments to ground themselves in what they are trying to exploit and why (based in some sort of theory).
is your preflop 3betting betsize from 60 to 170 standard (minute 1:00)? i am asking because its not even 3x and if you watch the middle and small stakes regulars almost all of them tend to 3bet 3x to 4x even in the no ante games.
When you check back the AJo hand on J546Q board on the river, do you think we are missing value? Not to be results oriented but I think JT/KJ call a small bet on the river and his range is more J heavy then set heavy combination wise.
Hi Ben
05.20 with AsJh, are you calling the SB's lead (readless) without the spade in your hand when he bets into 3 players?
06.40 with K2ss, you bet the river. Do you not check a hand stronger than 6x that you use for your check calls here? Villain can rep something like K7-K10 and some bluffs if he bets, and K2ss seems like one of the stronger bluff catchers we can check with here. If we are betting everything stronger than 6x, then villain can bet this river with a hand as weak as 7's, which doesn't seem right here to me.
Thanks in advance :)
Hey Eq,
@5:20, Yes. I'm not sure if it's right though. It does seem pretty attractive to lead with a draw though if my opponents fold every Jx combo to one bet!
@6:40, Well, how many bluffs does villain really have that he wouldn't have often bluffed with before?
Thanks, Ben. I did a CREV model of the K2ss with what looks like some fair ratios and frequency's: Our opponent can actually get to the river with a fair amount of air that he could bluff with on the river.
Didn't want to spam the discussion so I put the CREV textblock here http://pastebin.com/Za1feH0v
With you having said that you think villain doesnt have any bluffs by the river, are you never check calling?
Sry I can't click that just because I am the target of hacks and stuff pretty frequently so I've had to become very careful :(
I think most people end up betting flops with a lot more bdfd hands, and bet turn with a lot more gutters, leaving them with fewer bluffs on the river (many bet the backdoor straightdraws on flop as well, making their range even weaker). So, I'd check hands that aren't ahead of their calling range on the end, but I'd bet any K for value. For instance, even if OOP calls with any 3rd pair>, or bdfd, or gutter, that still only sums to around 47% defense frequency on the flop. That means cbets should be quite effective for IP.
I don't think it's hard for villain to show up with air, all he has to do is check back some medium cards twice during the hand. What I meant was that in practice I think people opt to bet most hands without showdown value when they're assured of 50%+ folds and likely 10+ cards where they'll have +EV double barrels.
I don't have much else to add, I agree that against a strategy like the one you proposed my river bet is marginal since the river range IP shows up with has a balanced frequency of Ax/Kx/QQ-77/smaller pairs and air. Against a range with a more linear distribution like the one you constructed a clairvoyant opponent will size up his river barrel size and/or bet TT+ for value, and get to bluff more of his air (in your sim he only gets to bluff around 35% of it on the river, so he certainly has plenty of air combos to add to his betting range if he thinks he can vb thinner). I just don't think more than 2% of the player pool plays like you suggest, but probably they should be balancing a bit more. Playing a hand like 97dd by checking twice and betting river would probably be a decent adjustment vs me, certainly it would be on runouts like this.
This export shows a preflop defense range for BB and a flop defense range.
[CardRunnersEV v2.9.2]
[This text block contains a savefile for CardRunnersEV]
[Use Ctrl+I to import into CardRunnersEV]
[www.cardrunnersev.com]
[8hv_bEtt_r0jK+m1-l3#B_-FlQTFbhD5K$X1LF.KKG3WLAjba#VdXCayS?PKyaD+.vsQ41]
[eE+R=Bj*(m@zAx)KYx=DG&5l*x2juWtFnq=+7*yN.gvbT!yuEBrfE5SdK0wqzITYqglKrr]
[Qb-u#Jok!N#y_BrW@&upM2e7@p.wINd@AM_C3-tcS1BO?k@8cz1xk8Phafw&ICtC8KYc65]
[JzI6?z2Qdp89z&yoEWh.Va4Q&?K?KE#Vdv$nCD6lEmn+,T7jzK_61,!JM.iVVw@hP-flsD]
[lD5MTCqXIOYP#Sd_VAv.eRV3&8LLY+$LRt7nYABr$z35t1t9LVIUZTo9Pc11u?fhWB&BP+]
[13oSX1wr5xFg02X7ZS@+ABs.nlx5t03fa5nGkpAnOuqaWzB6vUr_$_w@jCoxzhaOY$SQAd]
[BiplRtr4d+dM$7P@r#95AeT_qAi@gBei_x$MduO9v9kvXw99q67IHr4RVKr>=GG,gTtQn9]
[lxhx8ckfQeWKUWYQ+q2ep7Mm73kd+TkLsl!vB(mL)TpZnOqOqNRF1RkXuV7jdi$dRzoTZ0]
[Q3ozCme!lC?7X.&pKP@u3Tt_bEMIlKmseCpgTefPb6hkmtYNxLySu-oHm7$gLXrYMdpSlL]
[c#-z$SWcpn9-Y7o?E3tIR4Qjo08Kl0r4kUGVHI1:USvmrUG_i,Mi7J,ne1k,Kz8H,yLpY,]
[.9qf,s4xx,PLPu,GbP.,k#h3,Aziz,aqdN,fghG,Z$Pn,jaQy,!wzM,B$DU,g$E4,8H8h,]
[?2kp,qo8x,NEu1,jID9,rz!Z,AvJv,#DmX,.CnS,WzvE,SEd?,NzMw,Y8RD,#UDg,Lj-+,]
[PtUi,A?fH,&5Ou,40M_NW7+QwPiAbR,Nz!L,_ha2,Ieyz,u-q3,32!Z,!6h$,vs-K,M6Gm]
[,.#A5,3Qm.,APVk,Hyui,xROI,-e9C,rOJm,?Jx-,OmYI,1jTD,tkvu,WxR&,P9J_,RQpn]
[,jve-,2-Ks,Z4zY,JCN4,CU5T,5zNx,MR2X,Kz5u,h_2-,en0e,DuuU,z4L1,iuLt,TQS@]
[bkDUn9?kl+!eQBI@iyhum_R10+0vbUDM@GeBW8Mu?yC1&x2h$tnFqApLY2LZmlbkufRHQe]
[LV&JTp$fN8T_ETQL._9tVI9kh71w#9z7FNiH.q74im3E3+gPey+4rS2P1T4DCL-WpgOOGb]
[a9fmuYPZ!&e-1Vwwc@0KUQFL?_?+pF0CCiBm!1179MYo?3nyECF8NTdcCJPyVPaFib$anw]
[Eq2PUZInR!-PPN7xkrNw3I-qy#N3Mgjl!P$3++BCE0@RkF+rp-NTF@&7vu&Te5WAhh-ozr]
[OdLvObqwrAfxOrirXhkJ_IN7>=7e,afTFoJRWRlaJMLVY6fR4VUzL+c3M!UY4KWRSx3Lb9]
[f1sTyCW#A_OQz+W9p@W@6@Fb&Wvl@%bc7UFjLuV+-HH$DStEkf-3G?-aoZS.Rz8#tUwK&E]
[hq+0lN3N8hchS7R8t8c.0$I??1nu@fzy3Vpwq$TbzhMj9-oPG1LAXAwn8$?gdi-ZTAwOG$]
[pC_vgedTJ65?Th&qPO7+5z$wnVhLtRyM-pzuBg0L@bVQG7BcJ.t!6_0#jkitTN.?iL1Q@@]
[.0o87KCs+FkhD@TzXTx6EQuW39QT$Tapy9W@1MQTC.F-nVOsFzWP+_ESCjADv?2p00_B?8]
[ErZGlAgZyLFnETYoY!9g>=#eRl9sY2Y3&P6kmh!LAp!mngcbyiVQ1z7FKS%z6X@Pht8q.0]
[ZBMUOr.VPFXGapsAzZ441fzHQz&cI.FPwO.gwEiJ2QpGQKnDHP-bN9s6ie5YnUj$w539G?]
[tOglwT5Tw!ZX#MLS.NF.BpeXY$mauhkAhkNBZHpRtkj2IbxzrC?4Y5JEuCscNjjHP?04HX]
[!cxB_iekpvLKWWRZRWaEuQu!z6c3cv.z-P&6@l9#cX-Q6wdI#Ll.ZRFRDE97!bN1!9k8GC]
[+8D.+jtf&!XO-NneRGNU1Dv58+70XWp91XyP$hYyG+?uwlug%v>=OcurMRKrfhsrQ&TNZd]
[t82Ji6aVv&?3yugSPL8Roa9O@0JDZ9RRlw1U2J1g#jOXyfjmP1Qhj$+t5o1Q9s_!9jS3x2]
[TdmsjtNE8Oq#Q593d?J#zT+?a@Ef7HDsKC#i8oi02pTXlqAjYtuXONiyra8X5bGD!XihF6]
[l7@ypGr1.nY-d$rr-T5tE8PGEc3#uceChqyBgq-hiAvd4zVPadhBAilBWuH+5vOAq&_JId]
[rW4xrRKEX1dedtQR9V9NfmwPXx!?FEX,@.&@?yc@Y,gZvo@CafNjfG+Y5ZizSyNcwNM_Ts]
[d0x2emkVk9@BIK-30_gHTVeDPsx8ZTUQnIV_eLLPkoc!OTWZJ30_5fWUoV8aoIxBKoRxB9]
[gL0#?sXLe1Uh7mz-g_l6&-1hQ6fWU@P10F!8w@CmaNeUJoXgn7AO#D00rwEQR+7NmM5V8b]
[NpytpIH!l1ZuBmG-GVgU6DA_.SlFNqEM1Hk2N_8X-35aD2tXo#E52OBogt0E4+oD7bS9Gr]
[np-cOl@apF5FOYoH#vUDKF8t377ebn0Ahe6VjyEQilx4Wug?mCreEbfNqZUqzS!jTb0Ddu]
[Vk#ed+9Wp$n@NYAnEG3CZW3F&NxXk8LahE9KWzEH$0@h+f_b->=E+4lw92fd1ap-bL#fzi]
[1se#A6Y#ZRJj7GWLDt->=P0tU-0uPe5qo8LTydYsiqlj$099U5D8IvI!kOTd@!C&CjC&eI]
[JgF6g54uUj8tF6L54Zw>=om[Cd,rI]1?x:zR,-LE2MP,yDRt-U@d3xRzW5QNC?SG_l10Zr]
[R2#5wEopu>=2W[q3]1&M:ny-EJU9e38VU_53BTLtIA7bvcQY8dFWR0LNtUK8OPSXy86(Hp]
[)s!+BG2LH1BFislwTwvEDzT-#C02uig9-9K-_icuy2nFG?&CT7Nl?LhEvXPYX#8+O&iuVc]
[Dms!Ns9v?NQaVlYpCBI8m9ZbF3U_MaiL1&A!hOqtXgQAuzI8RK@U2DzXe?ptJfT2xQlQgx]
[vny8td2WRpUFakMJYbvRBQ39yHNwfCpx2_uD@YA3cHlqV41w@p-R8Q0!FH6quHcP@RXtfe]
[kM?1?q4APmAm+#JOq7ntJ64$yz5H97T+lwr-Q#pBFoACznFkxj9KB!jKkqy30Nrev3qCfS]
[9&ZjTaG1#ZDHcz5B6kNvuqcGJZldK3U9b$nQL6mxOdI&y#y?I6HU3t_#GkgysBJp_Y91Sl]
[iZ.9um4EF24n4P3a6mb-2+%HpTgG0MSIf!XLLWEN0v#GiA-TyFeB5l9dG456U1x@Lc2Vhw]
[0hhQA1RO!!ILF!&cgE1mo3!3PVQd0OmtyENi1x$gyL@9fkVqSV_ELBt.NF1VTSu2Rq8E#R]
[PozFbGFTk#AmBLU!gB3t-!5$lxV@c+GcD?LRLa@r6c39QJONjZeQP4v#gtH7lST7x2o7n6]
[?6e-f4MPy$1.IaSmZc6THwBMDKOCDI?Bn0cJT@MPpz+FphhDnVh!h1dQgLFyyD0j9jnd!W]
[vouM3sm5cNkR01K.$xvu@?AOzNdbPdX74!l_W&XM+OFC!jNrUw-Df9gXvYwAimp2s&vhjI]
[nt6LALwZNGRZqeDtg7aP05@6mz78dpFC9spQYNfZofqBkGO3g+GHlDrmpYV2Sh$TfX&Qhb]
[zt4H3FUWPcgzNA!F@saxXN$9xjze+!DPrnEp5J.Kflcr8uHnf6Zc8c7Y_weIFADsKXp!GR]
[YSoGiAhZN1LqkAXYeHAgmHRX$4J_aJ&7InXIdYcA.WPEskEvpamesWoep1A$2EY+76&dYI]
[9.y8Pn-fowMP@-wz+yJjc0p]
Min. 8.30 - KJo - not the most interesting question,
but I strongly suppose that KJo belongs not in your default constructed 3b-Callrange OOP MPvsBTN - so what parameters had you lead here to call with it pre?
Can you start by explaining why you strongly suppose KJo is a fold?
I too have a question regarding the call of the 3-bet MPvsBTN w KJo, and I guess the main reason everyone else does as well is that people are used to 4-bet bluffing or folding with it in this type of spot. Against the range of QQ+ AKo+ A5s A4s and then with a 50% weight of A3s A2s A9s AJo 64s K7s 98o sprinkled in there we need to realize roughly 85-90% equity for a breakeven call, is there any way (other than filtering in HEM but we are going to need a big database) for us to quantify what the realistic outcome here is ? Intuitively it feels kind of gross to call there but with these marginal spots it can go either way anyway. Would you say its close enough that it doesn´t matter ?
As a second question, do you have any recommendations as to what to work on for someone playing small to midstakes and what you feel like the biggest mistakes people might be doing at these stakes and would you agree that the lower you play the more exploitative of an approach one should be taking ?
edit : yeah sorry I didn't figure out the reply option earlier
d0zer,
I ran a polarized range of $3b7.3, which goes AQs+, TT+, A5s-A9s, AJo, T9s-65s (around 50% bluffs). Against this we need to realize ~82.5% of our equity. Against a linear range of $3b8.3 going KQo+, AQo+, QJs+, KTs+, 88+, we need to realize around 92% of our equity.
So, after some sober reflection, I think I was a little out of line with the call. KJo does OK realizing equity because most of its equity is in flopped pairs and straight draws, on the other hand when it flops overcards or backdoor SDs it almost never gets to showdown unless the flop is low low low and AK checks back (and then we might bluff). I do think I realize between 80 and 85% probably, so if I think the 3bettor is fairly polarized, and/or plays kinda weak, and/or is bluff heavy, I might be able to make the call. But I'd advise you guys to fold, and I should probably fold too.
I definitely don't think I realize 92% versus a linear range.
Min. 10.50 - A6s - don`t you think an overcall IP OTB is +ev here w Axs?
LazySummerDays and I are discussing this hand earlier on in the thread. Please add to that thread.
min. 11.45:
Ehen talking bout range-construction - what you think is OTR a better Bluffraise-hand from your range,
a hand like 4c5c or JT?
And wow that you called there - I also think that his valuebet is way too thin, but to have J3o in your callingrangeOTR seems at least equally very bad tbh - gametheorywise it has to be bad, at least for my "riverarrivingrange" and very likely also clearly for yours...
Still of course so far another great vid where I can take something out like from all your vids - Keep plz on the very good work man and thx a lot!:)
Squall_ES and I are discussing this hand earlier on ITT, as are gbtl and I.
hand at 12.49 is a direct contradiction to your own valuebet around 8 minutes....
Can you explain a little please? One of the problems with direct contradictions is that when we make em' we usually don't see them or else we'd probably have done something different!
I am at half of your video now, but I have some basic questions. Your flatting KJo on MP vs a 3bet on the btn. Is this your standard to call in this situation, and aren't you afraid of being dominated a good % of the time postflop(I am not exactly sure how much people 3bet AJ,KQ comparing to flat calling).
Min 19.00 108s hand. You are checking on A52ss on the btn vs SB. Is it a bad idea to have a 100% cbetting range on this board, as you have all the Aces in your range and the SB only medium aces(Expecting he is 3betting A2s-A8s, AJ+ allot of the time).
I'm not sure if calling KJo is good there or not. In any case, I don't expect to win very much of the pot, a little more than a third would be plenty.
@A52ss btn v sb: I wasn't aware it was common for people to only flat with the medium aces. If it is, and his range contains a lot of marginal hands like suited bways, KQo, KJo, big ish SCs, and medium PPs, then yes, I think this is a good flop to cbet 100% because his range is so weak. I'm not quite sure what people flat with in the SB, but generally I think the most common hands are MPPs, and the next most common suited aces and kings.
Hi Ben.
Great video, was action packed. struggled to keep up ha.
Why in these games are peoples 3bet size so small OOP? in one hand someone opens BTN vs you in BB and you make it 130 (130bb effective) if i remember correctly. this means Villain needs to win the hand 33% of the time with his pot equity. Nearly all at the table are doing this as well. could you give me some insight as to why please?
I don't know how to answer this question. Is "this means Villain needs to win the hand 33% of the time with his pot equity" an argument? What size do you suggest and why?
Thanks for your response Ben. Yea im thinking we are making it way to cheap for villain. the norm over the years has been to 3B 4X villains raise. I know some people have smaller and bigger sizes here but the whole table seemed to be doing it so. My GTO way on of thinking is that our value range is much stronger than our bluff range so therefore we can make it smaller but that would not be the case here at all.
Any help would be great thanks, gl
4x definitely isn't the norm, at least on the major sites 2/4 and above. When you 4x you should play a tighter range because the raise is more expensive, and you should expect to win the pot more often. When you 3x you should play a somewhat looser range because it's less expensive, and you'll get folds somewhat less often. I doubt it matters too much which sizing you use so long as you balance it well.
That makes a lot of sense thanks for your time. GL
Hello Ben, thanks for the video !
You called the PFR from BTN on BB with 53 and X/R the 543 flop. If you X/R 2P+ don't you think your X/C range is too weak ? What flop hands are you calling down 3 barrels with, assuming they are not improving ?
I would appreciate if you comment a bit on how you split your range here
Thanks !
okdude,
Sergei and I are discussing this hand earlier ITT. Your questions sounds video length not comment thread length, but check out what Sergei and I have to say and see what you want to add.
There's also a Btn vs BB 874 flop in part 1 that's very similar from a strategic perspective, that post might be helpful too.
I too have a question regarding the call of the 3-bet MPvsBTN w KJo, and I guess the main reason everyone else does as well is that people are used to 4-bet bluffing or folding with it in this type of spot. Against the range of QQ+ AKo+ A5s A4s and then with a 50% weight of A3s A2s A9s AJo 64s K7s 98o sprinkled in there we need to realize roughly 85-90% equity for a breakeven call, is there any way (other than filtering in HEM but we are going to need a big database) for us to quantify what the realistic outcome here is ? Intuitively it feels kind of gross to call there but with these marginal spots it can go either way anyway. Would you say its close enough that it doesn´t matter ?
As a second question, do you have any recommendations as to what to work on for someone playing small to midstakes and what you feel like the biggest mistakes people might be doing at these stakes and would you agree that the lower you play the more exploitative of an approach one should be taking ?
hey >Ben great video as usual. This is gonna sound like a dumb question. U often talk about how much money u can bet with certain hands for value. With certain hands u overbet for value and others u bet on the smaller side and others closer to pot. My question is how do u manage to stay balanced with each sizings. how do u decide with which hands ur gonna choose to bet the different amounts countering the times u are valuebetting?
thanks and if this is too broad of a question, no worries, I 'll take anything I can get. :) gl gj
IMO, multiple betsizes are needed mostly when villain's range is capped. If villain isn't capped, then betting <x, where x is our maximum value-bettable size, won't cost us much EV because villain will be raising us. Most times in poker it's probably better to be able to bet a ton of different sizes, especially if you think you can get away with it, but I tend to think if villain was clairvoyant those added betsizes would cost much more than they gained.
An example might make this clearer. Say villain has a one pair Qx on a Q9832 board, and we have a range of KQ, JT, and 54, 65, and 76 (ignore blocker effects to make things easy). We'll have a >1:1 ratio of bluffs:valuebets, so villain will have to play a mixed strategy with his bluffcatchers. Suppose pot is our optimal betsize with KQ. How can it possibly be EV-maximizing to bet pot with JT?
hey ben
v quick 1: i was think about your match with wcg last night (sorry, i'm sure you dont want to be reminded of it too often :) )
now i remember after losing to jungle in the final of the all star showdown you thought the reason for the loss was a combination of mental tiredness and the cards going against you (if i remember correctly).
in this recent big match, do you feel you got v outplayed, slightly outplayed or another reason?
cheers
I think I ran badly and got outplayed by a lot.
Please don't ask me personal questions in a video comment thread in the future.
32:55 - I have a basic question about pf opening ranges. You mention A9o being "one of the weakest hands" you open from the co. Do you mind sharing what % you open from co and btn. I am also curious about btn because of the A2o, A3o folds.
Do you open T9o or J9o in the co? Do you value some offsuit wheel Axs over A8o for example? I am speaking of a typical online situation with 100ish bb stacks and 3/2 decent regs left to act.
Hey Ben,
first post here and want to say hi to all ;)
20:00 - 53o bottom left, you lead on 542r and after OR folds, BTN start thinking and you said you were going to fold to a raise. Can you explain that? How can you fold with so much equity?
I said that "I'm calling a raise."
Quoting here not possible?
Anyways, regards to why I think KJo is not a call vs a bTN-3bet (min. 08.30):
I just thing it has too less EQ - this might be a common BTN-3bet-range in this spot (bout 5%):
QQ+,AKs,A9s,A2s-A5s,97s+,87s,AKo
and here KJo has only 35% EQ - you get 2.4:1 pre (bout 29% EQ needed), but obv. here you need imo way mroe EQ cause you OOP, have some RIOs and higher effective costs cause multiple streets will still come...
Hey!
One other thing - you open 3x OTB - this is a rought question and likely to general, but do you have some meaning behind?
Tyler Forrester said something in his last vid (in the commentsection) that actually Ackerman and Billy chen think in MoP that larger sizeings are OTB > smaller sizeings and that this might be the reason why those guys from montenegro (most likely programmed bots) open OTB even 3.5x.
The reason for that shall be that EQs getting closer regards to BB-coldcallrange and our openingrange OTB - so to keep BB from defending profitably a ton of hands with >=40% eq vs our range, we wanna raise OTB larger...
Do you have an opinion on that?
w 53o at 20:04 .. did you consider betting ~40% at all? do you prefer the size you made it? his range is mostly pp and a hi ? feel like a smaller bet may be better.
ben what hotkeys do you use? I dont know which ones to use because they interfere with chat. :\ which ones are best? thanks
just for betting, chk, and fold to any
10:48, his valuebet on the river with K9 on top right table. I would say its non strange line, he just limped the SB and he knows that you would reraise pre if you had an ace :)
Hey Ben love the videos, I recently returned to playing poker and am trying to get through all of your (and Tyler Forrester's) 6 max NL content. I realize I'm commenting on a 4+ year old video but on the off chance you see this what hands would you be bluff raising on the top left table at 18:00 when you raise TT on 7d6h2d? Hands like 89dd and 58/45 (if you even have them I'm not sure just how crazy you go flatting 3bets) seem like the prime candidates but I've always tended to just call those hands because raise getting it in seems to narrow their range to hands that we're either flipping against or dominated by. Am I just being a nit? Is this a play that works better with a "Sauce" image? Would say A6dd or possible other Axdd be a better choice? Anyways thanks for all the awesome content, I know hearing back from you on this one might be a long shot but one out is all you need right?
PS If you have any favorite 6 max nl coaches on here you would recommend I would love to hear what the man himself thinks :)
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.